Marian Harkin (Sligo-Leitrim, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I will largely refer to comments made by the Tánaiste this morning. There are certainly one or two points I take issue with. He said we need a debate to draw out what we mean by neutrality. The debate on the motion this morning certainly does that. We need that debate and we are having it this morning, but I note that the Government's amendment to the motion states that the Government "is committed to a Dáil debate on the outcome of the Consultative Forum" it established and that it "will consider in this light whether to bring forward a set of specific follow-up actions and policy recommendations, building on the report of the Forum", etc.

The Minister of State accused us of closing down the debate, but the Government amendment considerably narrows the focus of the debate. As I said, its proposal is to debate the outcome of the forum and bring forward, if appropriate, recommendations building on its report. If that is the extent of the discussion, rather than a broad open discussion on neutrality - this motion is certainly a useful part of the discussion - and if that is the extent of the Government's proposals, it needs to examine its conscience, as the Tánaiste stated, about closing down aspects of this important debate. This motion is not the final word on any discussion on neutrality - far from it - but it is an open, reasonably balanced attempt to look at many of the different aspects that impact on our neutrality.

The Government's amendment states "the Government does not believe a referendum enshrining neutrality in the Constitution is appropriate". It seems the Government made that decision before any debate took place, but it says we are closing down the possibility of drawing out what is meant by neutrality. I would have thought a decision on a referendum on neutrality would be the end-point of detailed discussions rather than a decision being taken that it would not even be considered. I agree with the Tánaiste regarding simplistic constitutional amendments. They would hold real risk, but no one is suggesting simplistic constitutional amendments. We did not suggest wording; we simply suggested that work needs to be done to find a wording and put it to the people.

Our Constitution provides the foundation for our action on neutrality. The Defence (Amendment) Act 1960 stipulated that overseas deployment of our Defence Forces could only happen with UN approval and a resolution by the Dáil and was built on by the triple-lock amendment to our Constitution as part of the Nice treaty. To say as a starting point that we cannot or should not touch our Constitution to refine or update it in regard to our policy on neutrality, rather than have that as an end-point to any discussion, closes down certain aspects of the debate.

The Tánaiste said the motion, if passed, would constrain the Executive's ability to exercise its policymaking function and authority in the conduct of external relations as articulated by Article 29 of the Constitution. I would like to see more clarity on that. I have looked carefully at what we called on the Government to do. It was to:

- affirm and reiterate our steadfast commitment to neutrality

- [hold] a referendum....

- maintain and strengthen our role as a responsible, non-aligned and impartial nation...

- continue to support international peacekeeping efforts.....

- work to raise awareness of....neutrality

- ensure the inspection of civilian and military planes....to verify that they are lawful...

- properly fund and resource our Defence Forces; and

- confirm and ensure that Irish Defence Forces' personnel are not, and will not be , involved in lethal weapons training of foreign military forces.

How will any of that constrain the ability of the Executive to act? What actions is the Government thinking of taking that would be constrained by this? The motion contains a reasonable request. We want to be part of the debate on neutrality and to see that it is not constrained by being based only on the recommendations of the forum.

See this speech in context